write_public_draft

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool does not publish, but provides no information about side effects, state changes, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a render-only tool, the lack of detail on potential state changes (e.g., temporary file creation) is a gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified for a tool with 4 parameters and 13 siblings. It lacks any structure, such as a breakdown of input or output.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (1 required), an output schema, and multiple siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the rendered draft looks like, how to interpret output, or how it relates to other candidate-handling tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. It fails to explain the purpose of 'page', 'title', 'redact', or 'request_id', leaving the agent without guidance beyond the schema names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool renders a public-site markdown draft candidate without publishing, using specific verb 'render' and resource 'public-site markdown draft candidate'. It implicitly distinguishes from publish-oriented siblings like 'apply_candidate', but does not explicitly name alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for previewing drafts, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'apply_candidate' or 'compile_page'. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.